[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Growth

From: Norbert Nemec
Subject: Re: Growth
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 17:09:48 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.12i

On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:31:02PM +1030, Michael Talbot-Wilson wrote:
> At 2001-03-19 18:38 +1200, Keith Hopper wrote:
> > In article
> > <address@hidden>,
> >    Michael Talbot-Wilson <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 
> > > Sizes of executables (all stripped)
> > 
> > > hello.c -> gcc -> 2772
> > > -> GNU Sather 1.3.b7 -> 506040
> > 
> >      Fully culture-sensitive run-time engine which includes about 400k of
> > initialisation code which is run before sather-main gets a chance.  It is
> > ridiculous, but almost every constant is not handled at compile time by
> > gcc.   I know - it's daft - but there you have gcc.  If I could only think
> I know _something_ here is daft, but I'm not certain that it is gcc.  
> Hasn't there been some loss of a sense of proportion?

That does not have anything to do with "sense of proportion" - the huge size 
simply should be blamed to the current compiler. It is known, that the compiler 
sucks in a number of edges, but at the moment, it is the only means to compile 
Sather code at all. There is no point at all to discuss problems that will be 
solved by a new compiler.

Also, I do not know, whether you are aware, that stripping a compiled sather 
program does not throw away very much: unless you compile a program without any 
checks (pre- post, etc.) it will contain much bloat that will not be cut away 
as symbolic info.


-- ______________________________________________________
--          To Him, even that machine here has to obey...
-- _________________________________Norbert "Nobbi" Nemec
-- Hindenburgstr. 44  ...  D-91054 Erlangen  ...  Germany
-- eMail: <address@hidden>   Tel: +49-(0)-9131-204180

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]